Sadly someone died in London from a stabbing. If this isn't terror related we can be relieved... but it probably is.
On the same day we get to see the new armed London police.... except we saw them last November after the attacks in Paris:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3322976/Chilling-new-face-police-Britain.html
So MPS seemed to know something today?
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 4 Aug 16 at 03:00
|
So, Norwegian believed to have mental health issues... tasered.
Headline: Norwegian with the blues stun easily
Too soon?
|
>>Norwegian believed to have mental health issues...
Norwegian-Somali.
|
If he was in the USA he would be in morgue now.
Our police show again that you don't need to use guns all of the time.
|
>>Our police show again that you don't need to use guns all of the time.
In cases like this, that's a pity!
|
>> >>Our police show again that you don't need to use guns all of the time.
>>
>>
>> In cases like this, that's a pity!
>>
So, just ignore the trial and go straight to execution. Whilst he is very likely to be the killer, this has to be proved in a court of law. To do otherwise would lead us down a very dark path.
|
If there is some bloke holding a blood covered knife and a body on the floor, plus several others injured and the scenario is obvious that he is the culprit, I'd rather him be shot ( several times) than wasting time & money with court procedures.
I for one am happy to go down that dark path
|
|
Not if he picked up the knife after someone else dropped it on the floor or had bravely wrestled it from the assailant!
Last edited by: zippy on Thu 4 Aug 16 at 14:49
|
Kill someone because you are certain they are bad.
Isn't that what the terrorists are doing?
I realise that the motivation, the criteria and the standards are different, but I would be massively uncomfortable with such an approach. Its just asking for injustice to occur, and framing etc. to arise.
And what if its shown to be a wrong decision and the guy was innocent, do we then execute the policeman for killing him?
And if you think that forgiving the policeman because a) he's a policeman and b) he thought he was right, then you're heading for the situation in Sao Paulo - 11,508 people shot and killed by the police over the last 15 odd years.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 4 Aug 16 at 14:52
|
|
I can't recall a single complaint by anybody when the "Priest killers" were shot in France as they emerged from the church. Going by some of the comments mentioned, they could have been anybody, obviously in situations like this the Police can be almost certain they are "downing" the real culprit. Not saying they will get it right in every case (in fact they haven't sometimes) but in 99.9% it will be the correct decision and could save further lives.
|
>> I can't recall a single complaint by anybody when the "Priest killers" were shot in
>> France as they emerged from the church.
>>
From what I read, they still had hostages and were shot to prevent harm to the hostages.
|
>>Kill someone because you are certain they are bad.
My fascist newsagent would probably go one better, and kill them in case they were. One Easter, I mentioned to him casually that there was a large gathering of bikers at a local pub. His comment, "It's no good. They'll have to have the whip". I mildly pointed out that they had done noting wrong and his response was "Maybe, but they might".
Now there's a smart idea but there is a snag - "Use every man after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?"
|
I fear that such a system could not be implemented reliably.
Would you give every armed police offer the job of judge, jury and executioner? There would be no provable record of the cases, and you had better not fall out with any coppers.
Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili might have considered it efficient too.
|
|
Judge Dredd would be ok with it though.
|
Executing a man is revenge. Imprisoning him is his repaying his debt to society.
This one is likely to end up in Broadmoor
|
>> Imprisoning him is his repaying his debt to society.
In what way? He'll cost the Taxpayer hundreds of Thousands for his care and treatment over the term of his imprisonment, and eventually be released, possibly to re-do what he has done. It has happened several times before, removal of liberty is no repayment for what these sub-humans do, he was prepared to take life without any consideration, he should be prepared to pay for it with his own. Knowing certain death would be a consequence of capture may dissuade some others of thinking of doing likewise. Time to get tough with Terrorists, seriously tough!
|
For the religious/political nutter death is a desireable outcome, martyrdom is sought and execution when they pose no immediate danger to anyone else is not the right answer. Execution is no deterrent
For the "clinically insane" it is not civilised and hopefully we have left it behind us long ago. Again Execution is no deterrent
Even for enemies in warfare whether it is at the individual, battlefield or even national level it is an uncivilised, in some cases unlawful, act to execute someone who poses no threat to you or someone else.
All hopefully fairly uncontentious modern, civilised behaviour.
Killing without cause is always wrong
|
>> >> Imprisoning him is his repaying his debt to society.
>>
>> In what way? He'll cost the Taxpayer hundreds of Thousands for his care and treatment
>> >>
Using that argument you may as well call for everyone sentenced to 3 years or more to be executed as they are going to cost hundreds over £100k to keep (£40k per year).
I think putting an Islamic terrorist in prison is more of a deterrent then killing them because they expect to be killed and martyred! Prison is an extra 40 years or so of punishment!
Further, this bloke isn't proved to be a terrorist and the consensus at the moment is that he is a mad man (though the two are not mutually exclusive).
|
Killing in London - Ian (Cape Town)
